Margo.Downey@f60.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Margo Downey) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15575 [This is from the Blink Talk Conference] David, I read the same way as you mentioned--except that I read a line with both hands--but mostly with the left hand--and let the right hand finish the line while the left hand starts reading the next line. My reading speed is influenced by what I'm reading and how much attention I need to pay to the material. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!382!60!Margo.Downey Internet: Margo.Downey@f60.n382.z1.fidonet.org
William.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15658 [This is from the Blink Talk Conference] MD> different, you read one with vision and you read the other with MD> your fingers. That's the difference I see. And, a sighted MD> person who reads print may be able to temporarily store MD> information for a couple of seconds that was input MD> visually--but who's to say Braille readers can't do that, Margo, Not I! In fact, I said in my message that I suspected a sensory storage of tactile information existed just as there is iconic memory! That is why I said we are comparing apples and oranges! Since with sight the total visual field is stored for the duration of the iconic memory, it can contain as much as the eye is capable of sensing in that amount of time. This, like it or not, is considerably more than even the quickest hands could cover in a similar amount of time, so there is more available for higher level processing such as recognition, contextual information gathering, and so on with sight! It is just in the nature of the beast. MD> what's the big deal anyway? Isn't the purpose of reading to MD> comprehend and to remember at least the essence of the text for MD> a while--longer than a few seconds in many cases? No, I don't think it is in many cases, I think it is in all cases! I guess that is why I ended my message saying almost exactly that and stating how I did much better in school after losing my sight than I had done as a visual reader! Likewise, I said in my message how difficult it would be to conduct a valid experiment comparing braille and print reading, so except for me believing that a greater amount of information put into sensory storage could result in a larger amount available for short term memory, and thus even long term memory if desired, we agree on everything. That's a high enough percentage for me Margo, so I'm done with this one! Willie ... BlinkTalk, Dr. Deb and Silver in Pittsburgh! -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!William.Wilson Internet: William.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
John.Sanfilippo@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (John Sanfilippo) (05/16/91)
Index Number: 15678 [This is from the Blink Talk Conference] Hi Margo, In my work at the Lighthouse Music School in New York, I can vouch for the fact that there are some "older adults" who take to braille as a duck to water! We had one person for whom we could not find enough music quick enough to satisfy their needs! Imagin that with the supposedly dastardly music braille code! I would venture to say that such folks are relatively rare, but, hay, they're out there. It's fascinating to see. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460!John.Sanfilippo Internet: John.Sanfilippo@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org
mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax) (05/24/91)
Index Number: 15760 In article <15658@handicap.news> William.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org writes: >Index Number: 15658 > > Since with sight the total visual field is stored for the duration >of the iconic memory, it can contain as much as the eye is capable of >sensing in that amount of time. > Actually, that's not quite true. Certainly a good deal of the visual field is processed simultaneously, and it is clear that a good deal of the results of that processing are stored. But since the low-level processing is itself influenced by such high-level details as attention, it is not possible that the *entire* visual field is stored _in toto_. Vision is a very complex sense, not usually amenable to blanket generalizations. marshall /****************************************************************************/ /* Marshall Gene Flax '89 (609)258-6739 mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU */ /* c/o Jack Gelfand|Psychology Dept|Princeton University|Princeton NJ 08544 */ /****************************************************************************/
William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson) (06/18/91)
Index Number: 16121 [This is from the Blink Talk Conference] To: mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax) >> Since with sight the total visual field is stored > for the duration > >of the iconic memory, it can contain as much as the eye > is capable of > >sensing in that amount of time. > Actually, that's not quite true. Certainly a good deal > of the visual > field is processed simultaneously, and it is clear that > a good deal of > the results of that processing are stored. But since the > low-level > processing is itself influenced by such high-level details > as attention, > it is not possible that the *entire* visual field is stored Marshall, Although your point is of course meaningless in a discussion of comparison of braille and print reading, as attention, if a factor in the one will likewise be a factor in the other, I'm afraid you will have to substantiate your declaration with some facts for me! Attention, as I was taught, is a factor in processing of information into short term and long term memory, but definately not considered a factor in sensory storage of information such as iconic memory! Obviously, if you are using attention to describe where the subject has their eyes pointed, it would be a factor in determining what comprises the visual field at a particular minute, but Sperling et. al. in their experiment, most definately did not consider it a factor! In fact, tthey quite clearly referred to their findings as denoting a "sensory storage", meaning pricisely that, storage at the sensory level, not at the perceptual level where attention is a factor! In other words, whether the subject recognizes anything at all from the iconic memory is irrelevant, they hypothesized exactly as I said, a very brief storage of all sensory information, long before attention plays any affect at all, at least in the way attention is generally used in the fields of sensation, perception and cognition. Willie -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!William.Wilson Internet: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org